Calilasseia wrote:Indeed, with respect to the general postulate "a god type entity of some sort exists", I'm one of many here who regard that assertion as possessing the status "truth value unknown", as is the case with every untested assertion.

What's more important, Cali? The fact that many here regard an untested assertion as having "truth value unknown", or that the assertion has not been tested?

Given my track record of disdain for untested assertions, which is shared widely here, you should know that the entire point of me bringing this matter up, was to highlight the fact that the assertion is untested (and hence has the requisite status I expounded, which as a corollary renders the assertion discardable until someone performs the effort to perform a proper test thereof).

Indeed, that's the whole point of presenting the requisite discoursive rules - to push those who really have an interest in those assertions, to figure out a proper method of testing them, without which, said assertions remain discardable.

Cito di Pense wrote:Does a lack of testing mean any particular assertion is subject to testing? No, it doesn't.

Which, of course, is one of the first questions to ask about an assertion, as I seem to recall I've stated in the past, because without a test being possible, an assertion never loses that "truth value unknown" status.

Cito di Pense wrote:But you know the provenance of the 'god-type entity', don't you? Do you say you don't?

Actually, from the standpoint of the general form of the assertion I gave, the answer is "no, I don't". What I do know, however, is that any competent candidate isn't going to come from mythology. If that assertion is ever to be tested properly, and the devising of a proper test will propel the inventor thereof to Nobel Laureate status, then the contradiction and absurdity riddled candidates so beloved of mythology enthusiasts, will be conspicuously absent from the outcome of such test, simply by dint of being riddled with contradiction and absurdity. But that doesn't mean I'm in a position to predict the outcome any more than anyone else here is. I've repeatedly stated that the manner in which scientific progress has rendered supernatural entities surplus to requirements and irrelevant, makes it more likely that the answer to that question will be a resounding "no", once a proper test is conducted, but that body of data does not exclude an entity compatible with known physical laws, for example. One of the reasons mythological candidates are filed in the "reject" category, is that they are all too often asserted to be in a position to tell the laws of physics to fuck off, whenever this happens to be administratively convenient, and those familiar with the tendency of humans to reach for lazy solutions to administration issues, can expect any entity with this capability to use it frequently, to the point that [1] it's bloody obvious what's going on, and [2] the laws of physics cease to be the laws of physics, courtesy of said frequent dismissal.

The mere fact that the laws of physics are observably not being tossed into the bin on a routine basis, again points to mythological candidates for the job being ruled out.

Cito di Pense wrote:We know it does because we have some very old documents that refer to a 'god-type entity'. The entity, then, arrives from deep in our past, courtesy of ignorant goat roasters and the propensity for succeeding ground apes to revert to "monkey see, monkey do".

That troublesome past history doesn't mean we can't learn to adopt a new approach. Which is, I gather, what scientists did when they launched modern science.

My message to those possessing an enthusiasm for mythological entities, is quite simply, don't waste my time with apologetics, along with its manifest fabrications and abuses of proper discourse - instead, get off your arse, learn from the example scientists provided, and do the job properly, otherwise I'll regard your entire output as discardable.

Cito di Pense wrote:We are not yet examining the 'god-type entity' with fresh eyes, are we?

That's precisely one of the aims of my expositions - to bring this about.

Cito di Pense wrote:Perhaps that is why many here simply react when some people, known colloquially as 'experts', know how to test some assertions. Does this mean all assertions are subject to testing? I remind you that it does not.

Not that I need reminding, of course.

But that's one of the beauties of pushing people down this route - one of the questions that will be answered, once a proper, diligent search for a means of testing said assertion is underway, will be to answer the question of whether or not said assertion is indeed testable.

But then, I possess this human attribute called 'curiosity'. Which has been a primary driver for all that scientific success I've mentioned. You may think such assertions are a waste of time full stop, but, I recognise that there are a lot of people who don't share this view, and that arriving at a proper, rigorously constituted examination of said assertions, will be of utility value in sweeping away much of the dross arising from those goat-roasters you're disdainful of. Indeed, I recall that Douglas Adams satirised the entire business via Deep Thought:

"What's the use of us spending long nights arguing whether there is a god or not, if this bloody machine gives us his telephone number the next morning?"

Perhaps if we had a machine that could do this, it would put a stop to the rot?

Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...

Ads by Google

John Platko wrote:What expert on God credentials would carry weight with you?

If we're going to give people a heads-up when we're making shit up, it's going to be an important part of that to admit when we are deferring to authority and when we're just deciding that something sounds good to us.

To answer your question, though, credentials are not going to be the gold standard. This is strictly going to be an argument that sounds good to me. Ain't heard that one, yet, although I admit that anyone can lose his grip in some circumstances, traveling in either direction.

Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.

Calilasseia wrote:Indeed, that's the whole point of presenting the requisite discoursive rules...

That's pretty strict, Cali. Granted, all that is going on here is discourse.

Calilasseia wrote:without a test being possible, an assertion never loses that "truth value unknown" status.

Well, take your typical metaphysical conundrum, you know, about the difference between the observed world and the real world, to which I've been giving a little thought lately. If someone tells you that observed X is not X itself, how does she so conclude? Caution dictates that we might, in fact, be observing the real world just as it is, with the proviso that our observational equipment vary from person to person and lab to lab. It's not that jamest has made an untestable assertion; it's that his logic has failed him. His statement is not just truth-value-unknown, it's in the dumper. Observed X is not X itself is not simply untestable. It's pure bullshit, and we don't give it 'truth value unknown' like we're playing patty-cake, because somebody who says observed X is not X itself wouldn't be able to tell, either.

Cito di Pense wrote:But you know the provenance of the 'god-type entity', don't you? Do you say you don't?

Actually, from the standpoint of the general form of the assertion I gave, the answer is "no, I don't". What I do know, however, is that any competent candidate isn't going to come from mythology. If that assertion is ever to be tested properly, and the devising of a proper test will propel the inventor thereof to Nobel Laureate status, then the contradiction and absurdity riddled candidates so beloved of mythology enthusiasts, will be conspicuously absent from the outcome of such test, simply by dint of being riddled with contradiction and absurdity.

You still don't fucking get it, do you? You're treating it as a word you can re-define, in case you find something that might fit, almost as if mythology was just primitive science. All you're doing is clinging to a word, like somebody who's still spooked.

Cito di Pense wrote:We know it does because we have some very old documents that refer to a 'god-type entity'. The entity, then, arrives from deep in our past, courtesy of ignorant goat roasters and the propensity for succeeding ground apes to revert to "monkey see, monkey do".

That troublesome past history doesn't mean we can't learn to adopt a new approach. Which is, I gather, what scientists did when they launched modern science.

Cling on, my friend. Either that, or explain to me the value you find in 'adopting a new approach'. Sounds like an act of faith to me. Not the hope of a new approach, although hope and faith are related. It's that faith a new approach will change something when we are not talking about technology.

Calilasseia wrote:But then, I possess this human attribute called 'curiosity'.

Yeah, me too, brother. But I ain't carrying no coals to Newcastle for no one. You of all people, who bandy about the phrase "surplus to requirements" often enough, should understand immediately what I'm getting at. What requirement is it that we seek to satisfy? Curiosity? Mmm hmmm.

Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.

Correction, I'm not clinging to a word, I'm asking that the concept in question be finally placed upon something resembling a rigorous footing. There's a big difference. At the moment, the concept is woefully lacking in rigour, in no small part because all manner of assertions about said concept have been allowed to fester without being subject to proper scrutiny. It's one of the aspects of the entire enterprise that I find so perverse, that those purportedly possessing a vested interest in having this concept made properly robust, having the requisite questions surrounding said concept framed properly, and proper attempts at answers pursued, are actively working to stop this from happening.

Yes, I am intimately aware of the aetiology of doctrinal attachment, indeed, I started writing about this nearly a decade ago over at RDF, but I cannot help but think that at least some supernaturalists would welcome the honest approach, if only because they think doing so will provide them with support for their views. Admittedly, the precedents here are not good, as anyone aware of the history of geology understands only too well, but one would think at least someone in the supernaturalist camp would take the risk, and try to do better than the lamentable farce that is apologetics.

Plus, there's a practical reason for me wanting to see this. At the moment, supernaturalism's insistence upon peddling apologetics, is manifestly malign, both for the arena of discourse and for policy. I want that malign influence brought to an end, and if giving the mythology fetishists the impetus to improve their game in the requisite direction achieves this end, then so much the better. We made vast progress in science, when the decision was made to work out once and for all just what it is we are talking about, and to update our view thereof the moment the data told us this was necessary. Call me naive if you wish, but I don't understand why supernaturalists aren't jumping at the chance to secure for themselves a similar brand of success. They might fail, and in the infant stages of such an endeavour, probably will, but if said exercise teaches them the important lesson that apologetics is just made up shit, that's one benefit I'll welcome.

Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...

While you're at it, see if you can put Captain Ahab and Moby Dick on a rigorous footing.

I'd love to implore theists to strengthen their claims about deities so that those claims would at least become more interesting to me. At the end of the day, though, I think that accords their position a little too much respect.

Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.

Melville, for all his faults, never tried to fit a round peg leg into a square hole.

A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark TwainThe sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken LittleI never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde

I used to argue with them, but it's pointless. Might as well discuss theoretical particle physics with my dog.

A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark TwainThe sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken LittleI never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde

I'm thinking I moved about 25% towards de-conversion since conversing here. I was already on a pretty tiny patch of theism with my imagined non-all powerful God when I joined but as I think back on where I was then and where I am now you folks have hemmed me in further onto a very tiny patch of theism which I could maybe just balance my big toe on - and I'm willing to chalk up the remaining bit to insanity.

Now at first I was thinking we should split the .25 among all those who share the credit for this accomplishment but after praying self talking to myself about it for a few grey coded bits I decided we should just do what they do at the Olympics and pass gold metals all around. So give yourself a .25 de-conversion if you've ever conversed with me.

John Platko wrote::scratch: I'm thinking I moved about 25% towards de-conversion since conversing here. I was already on a pretty tiny patch of theism with my imagined non-all powerful God when I joined but as I think back on where I was then and where I am now you folks have hemmed me in further onto a very tiny patch of theism which I could maybe just balance my big toe on - and I'm willing to chalk up the remaining bit to insanity.

Now at first I was thinking we should split the .25 among all those who share the credit for this accomplishment but after praying self talking to myself about it for a few grey coded bits I decided we should just do what they do at the Olympics and pass gold metals all around. So give yourself a .25 de-conversion if you've ever conversed with me.

I'm happy to accept 100% the blame for this, and happy to take 100% of the credit. Not only that, I'll admit I may have had nothing to do with it. 0%, to be exact. That's the way it goes with this sort of percentage shit.

Cleaning up the last 1% of a mess is frequently the most time-consuming part of the job, assuming we have to do it fucking perfectly. You know what perfectionism is all about.

Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.

John Platko wrote::scratch: I'm thinking I moved about 25% towards de-conversion since conversing here. I was already on a pretty tiny patch of theism with my imagined non-all powerful God when I joined but as I think back on where I was then and where I am now you folks have hemmed me in further onto a very tiny patch of theism which I could maybe just balance my big toe on - and I'm willing to chalk up the remaining bit to insanity.

Now at first I was thinking we should split the .25 among all those who share the credit for this accomplishment but after praying self talking to myself about it for a few grey coded bits I decided we should just do what they do at the Olympics and pass gold metals all around. So give yourself a .25 de-conversion if you've ever conversed with me.

I'm happy to accept 100% the blame for this, and happy to take 100% of the credit.

Are we sure we can rule out a miracle?

Not only that, I'll admit I may have had nothing to do with it. 0%, to be exact. That's the way it goes with this sort of percentage shit.

Cleaning up the last 1% of a mess is frequently the most time-consuming part of the job, assuming we have to do it fucking perfectly. You know what perfectionism is all about.

Ads by Google

This morning at the church during the bible study they were again talking about physical healing by god of various ailments. We were then asked to write down anything which was on our minds. I wrote (roughly) this and the speaker read it aloud to the group out of his own volition. Mine was the only writing read out. Might have helped some along the way toward deconversion, but again, hard to tell.

KIR wrote:Psychological pain is well documented to cause physical illness on occasion (psychosomatic/psychogenic illness). It stands to reason that peace of mind may well cure physical illness from time to time then. Belief in a god(s) may well cause such peace of mind sometimes, although I doubt it is the only such cause possible.